More working Americans test positive for drugs

It's not just housing prices and debt that are reaching record highs in this economy. Apparently, the workforce is, too.

New numbers from Quest Diagnostics, a clinical testing company based in Madison, New Jersey, show workplace tests are finding drug use at levels not seen in a decade.

Last year, 4.2 percent of drug tests conducted on employees or job applicants came back positive. It's the highest rate since 2004, when it was 4.5 percent.

For workers who are required to undergo drug tests -- including certain federal employees, pilots, bus drivers and oil pipeline workers -- the positive rate was 2 percent. For the general workforce, the rate was 4.9 percent.

1. I wish the article had a drug-by-drug breakdown.

If, as I suspect, the bulk of this increase is due to marijuana positives, then I couldn't care less. As the article mentions is happening in Colorado, a lot of places here in Oregon (where state law permits both medical and recreational use) are dropping cannabis from testing (or ignoring positive results for the weed).

15. Yeah, and I understand the need for hardcore policies in some jobs.

Obviously being high at work isn't acceptable in most jobs, but in the majority of cases all that's needed is a policy requiring a test if there's a suspicion of being under the influence is sufficient. For certain jobs, however, it's just common sense that you can't wait until there's suspicion...by then it could be too late to prevent a very serious accident. Requiring that those jobs be held by demonstrated non-users might be a bummer for a weed smoker who would never think of coming to work stoned, but it makes sense for society's risk/reward calculation.

Perhaps that could change as technology advances and a quick, foolproof testing method for whether or not someone is under the influence can be put into place for those critical jobs. If you just blow into a tube, press your palm onto the pad, or whatever when you come to work every day, that would make any other testing redundant. If/when such tech is practical, I'd expect it to be used for those jobs anyway. But as things stand, I have no problem with requiring testing for certain kinds of work.

12. I agree. There is, though, the question of what right your boss has to...

monitor your off-the-job time. If you got an STD while drunk at a party, no problem.
Do a spliff at that party and your ass is on the line.
We don't have the ability, legal or technical, to properly judge your ability to work with a hangover, prescription pills, tiny residual amounts of THC, or after a huge fight with your spouse and a talk with your divorce lawyer. So, we measure for those nasty drugs in your system.

13. The boss isn't monitoring off-the-job-time;

the boss is monitoring fitness for duty, and the current technology only measures presence of most substances (excluding alcohol) not level of intoxication. Given the level of exposure a company has for injury caused by an intoxicated employee they really have no choice.

20. We cannot measure THC levels directly and in real time

All we can measure is that there are byproducts present (used it sometime a while back). We can precisely measure blood alcohol levels. The alternative is the police style testing which is much more questionable.

17. A doctor? Yes, actually.

Obviously not if they were high at the time...but I'm generally willing to assume professionalism in such cases unless given reson to do otherwise.

It's kind of hard for me to answer the kid's bus driver question: I'm childless and really don't like children very much.

But yeah...I might not make the same assumption of professionalism for some barely-over-minimum-wage guy with a test-once-a-year CDL. This might fall into the category of job I talk about in some detail elsewhere in this subthread: those jobs for which it just makes common sense to try and hire only complete, demonstrable non-users. Jobs like nuclear power plant techs, air traffic controllers, etc. (to use a couple pretty extreme and obvious examples). School bus drivers might well be on such a list.

At least until tech to instantly and reliably determine if someone's under the influence becomes available...and it's my understanding that that's a good ways off.

4. So, legalizing marijuana has a down side eh ?

7. My sister is a manager of a job finders company. Their clients include Nucor Steel, Daiken, and

other heavy industrial companies. She cannot fill all the jobs because people cannot pass a urine and hair test. She will post positions on facebook and people will always ask if they will be disqualified for marijuana.

11. I can't understand

If someone is looking for a job, they know that they will more than likely be drug tested.
Wouldn't you think it would be wise to lay off until after you get the job?

On a side note my company has a test upon hiring and the only other time you would get tested is if you are injured and need medical attention. That is required by the insurance company.
My policy with my crew is that if you do get injured, I give them the option of taking care of it using their own insurance so as to avoid the drug test or they can do it through the company.
Of course if it's something serious like if they lop off their hand or something that policy goes out the window.

22. Do a lot of jobs perform this testing prior to employment?

My older daughter is in the medical field so was tested before employment, the rest of the kids are still younger and working school/college jobs, and did not mention that there was testing as they have changed jobs. I have not gotten a new job working for someone in many years, so have no personal experience.

I have a few contract guys (between 2 and 5 at any time) working for me at my own small business, and do not drug test people as they come in, as I expect that considering the level of work required, they have the good sense not to visit a customer site while impaired, smell of any intoxicants, or talk about it.

Is this a normal thing now? To test candidates for general employment? I only use nicotine and the occasional bourbon, so am not personally invested, but I am curious.

23. I was tested before my employment in '86.

I was also randomly tested when I filled a supervisory position. Other than that it is not a regular part of our operation unless an agent is involved in an accident while operating equipment around aircraft.

I haven't asked any junior agents if drug testing is still part of our hiring process, but I am guessing it is.